RMLUI – DUEast Central Vermont Community Fiber to the Home

A Case Study

Disruptive Technology / InnovationBandwidth: Nielson’s Law Processing: Moore’s Law

Economic – Production, Direct Jobs, Indirect Jobs, higher labor income

National Policy - Out of Date (driven by Telecom and Cable), CO is unique

Social Changes - Increase of better paying jobs (skilled labor), decrease unemployment (job searching), online careers, increase Quality of Life

Network Infrastructure

Application

Digital Convergence through Applications

Entertainment

Education

Government –Smart City

Utilities

Healthcare / EMS

Real Estate

Energy

Transportation

Wireless – PCS5G

Telecom - xDSL

Cable – Docsis3

Satellite – GEO12 GHz

Project Market (Unserved/Underserved)

Why?

• Rural Areas ignored by Incumbents

• Incompetent “Regulators” – especially Federal

– Regulatory Capture from incumbents

– Define Broadband Downward

– Example: in 2009, Fairpoint (incumbent) received $66MM for 10/1 Mbps!

Project MetricsBasics:

• Long-Term Business Model (began in 2008)

• In 2016, State legislature allowed Towns to form “TUDs” – (Telecommunications Union Districts) - (Title 30, Public Service (VSA 3051))

• 499 miles of fiber built to date, total build out in 2023 of 1,430 miles

• Scalable: 1 G/home to 10 G/home with little CAPEX miles of fiber.

• Debt is paid ONLY from revenues. ECF is the ONLY system in the Country funded this way.

• Additional 13 Towns are voting to form an adjacent TUD this week.

Costs:

• Total Project build out Cost: ~$40,000,000

• Cost per connection: ~$5,000

• 5 connections per mile with a current market penetration at 32% during construction, pre-subscriber interest levels determine deployment markets.

• Lion share of CAPEX goes to physical plant

Project Metrics (cont.)

Funding:

• Grants / Local contribution

• $7,000,000 through Crowd Funding and local investors (Tax-exempt investments. High Yield @ 11%)

• Zero Coupons / Capital Appreciation Notes (20 years)

• Trustee Structure:

– Maintenance Reserve Accounts

– Contingency Accounts

– Debt/Service Coverages

• Limit Debt to Cash Flow Analysis – Coverage Ratios

• Build out markets depending on pre-sales via website.

Fundraising History (000s)

• 2008-10 - $500 (Valley Net)• 2010 - $900 Crowd Finance• 2011 - $400 “• 2012 - $1,700 “• 2013 - $1,700 “• 2014 - $1,500 “• 2015 - $850 “• 2016 - $9,000 MCM (institutional)• 2017 - $14,500 MCM (institutional)

Use of Cash Surplus

• When revenues exceeded expenses, the “excess revenues” can be used for:

• First extending the network to other locations, and only then* distributing back to the Towns

*Governing Board is committed to using ALL excess revenues for network expansion until every citizen within market has service.

Result

• Customers in rural Vermont are receiving Fiber to their Home

– (better than Denver or other technology hubs across the United States)

• Schools / Community Services pay same as residential customers.

• Lower Interest Rates and Cheaper cost of capital versus Incumbents

• High Operating Margins

• Churn on Network - .13%

– 3 customers dropped service in 2017 (2 were home sales that

flipped to new customers)

• At 1/3 build out (10,000 customers) project will generate

$3,400,000 in additional annual cash flow after OPEX and Debt.

• Achieve an investment grade rating via Moody’s and/or S&P using a

combination of a Utility Fee and Revenue based methodology.

Can this work in other markets?Financial Model does work in underserved/unserved but need to be run like a business…

– i.e. paying back investors is as important as social goals

Requirements:

– Lead/Local Investors – no town risk

– Angry and Determined Communities

– State – Regulatory/Grants/ (Dark Fiber Availability)

– Need a willing Service Provider (Valley Net) and Operations Company

– Dedicated Volunteers

• Governance, Marketing/Sales/PR, Vendors

– PATIENCE

Thanks!

Christopher Perlitz

MCM

Greenwood Village, Colorado

C.720-956-1000

www.municapital.com